Inside

Inside is a 2016 puzzle platformer that, on paper, should not challenge modern hardware. Yet, the measured results for the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 combination reveal a fascinating bottleneck dynamic that flips the traditional script. The data shows a system where a top-tier 20-core processor is consistently held back by a legacy GPU, but the degree to which this occurs changes dramatically based on resolution and quality presets. This pairing, ranked 2780 out of 2887 tested combos for this specific title, offers a clear case study in how a game’s visual load can shift the balance of power between components.

Resolution Scaling

The most striking pattern in the measured FPS data is the non-linear impact of resolution scaling. Moving from 1920x1080 to 2560x1440 to 3840x2160 does not produce a uniform drop in frame rate; instead, the penalty is steep and consistent, indicating that the GeForce GTX 1650 is the primary limiting factor as pixel count increases. At the High preset, performance falls from 67 FPS at 1080p to 48 FPS at 1440p, a reduction of 19 FPS, and then further to 30 FPS at 4K. This represents a 55% performance loss from 1080p to 4K. The pattern is even more pronounced at the Low preset, where the frame rate drops from 134 FPS at 1080p to 97 FPS at 1440p, and then to 61 FPS at 4K, a total decline of 73 FPS or 54%.

This scaling behavior is a classic symptom of a GPU-bound scenario. The processor, with its 20 cores and 5.30 GHz boost clock, is likely idling in most scenes, waiting for the GPU to rasterize the frame. The fact that the 4K Low setting (61 FPS) achieves nearly double the frame rate of the 4K High setting (30 FPS) confirms that the GPU’s fill rate and memory bandwidth are the decisive factors. The GTX 1650’s 128.1 GB/s memory bandwidth and 128-bit bus are simply overwhelmed by the sheer number of pixels at 3840x2160, regardless of the complexity of the shading. The data implies that for this specific game, resolution is the master variable, and the CPU’s massive computational headroom is irrelevant once the resolution climbs past 1080p.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 is a 20-core, 20-thread processor with a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz. In synthetic benchmarks, it scores 42216 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 5960 in single-core, placing it in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs. However, the measured FPS in Inside tells a different story about its role in this specific workload. The game, being a 2D side-scroller with a limited number of on-screen objects, is unlikely to leverage more than a few cores. The data supports this: the frame rates at 1080p Low (134 FPS) are high, but they are not indicative of a CPU bottleneck.

Instead, the CPU’s role appears to be one of consistent, low-load support. The processor is powerful enough that it never becomes the limiting factor, even at the lowest resolution and settings. The 134 FPS at 1080p Low is likely near the game’s engine limit or the GPU’s maximum output for that configuration, not a reflection of the CPU’s maximum capability. Compared to its nearest rivals, the CPU’s average benchmark score of 64640 is nearly identical to the AMD EPYC 4464P (64823, -0.3% delta) and the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F (64438, 0.3% delta). This consistency in synthetic scores, combined with the FPS data, suggests that the CPU is providing a stable, high-frequency foundation that allows the GPU to be the sole determinant of performance.

How This Combo Ranks

The overall ranking for this combination in Inside is 2780 out of 2887 tested combos, placing it in the bottom 4% of all systems. This is a surprisingly low rank for a CPU that sits in the 93rd percentile of all processors. The discrepancy is entirely explained by the GPU. The GeForce GTX 1650, with a passmark G3D score of 7880, sits in the 40th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (7447, 0.3% delta) and the Intel UHD Graphics 750 (7441, 0.4% delta), which are integrated or low-end mobile parts. This pairing of a top-tier CPU with a bottom-tier GPU creates a massive imbalance.

The combo rank is a direct reflection of this imbalance. While the CPU could likely drive frame rates far beyond what is measured, the GPU caps the system’s performance. The data implies that for Inside, this system performs worse than many older, more balanced systems with mid-range CPUs and GPUs. The 2780th rank out of 2887 is a stark indicator that the GTX 1650 is a severe bottleneck, and the system’s overall capability is defined by its weakest link. The high CPU score is effectively wasted in this context, as it cannot compensate for the GPU’s limitations in a graphics-bound title.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a complete picture of performance across three resolutions and four quality presets. At 1920x1080, the system delivers playable frame rates across all settings. The Low preset produces an average of 134 FPS, which is excellent for a game of this genre. The Medium preset drops to 107 FPS, with a minimum of 91 FPS and a maximum of 124 FPS, indicating a stable experience. The High preset yields 67 FPS, and the Ultra preset drops to 64 FPS. The difference between High and Ultra is minimal (3 FPS), suggesting that the Ultra preset adds little visual fidelity for the performance cost at this resolution.

At 2560x1440, the impact of the GPU becomes more apparent. The Low preset still manages a smooth 97 FPS, but the Medium preset drops to 77 FPS (min 66, max 89). The High preset falls to 48 FPS, and the Ultra preset to 46 FPS. The 1440p results show that the GTX 1650 is starting to struggle, with the High and Ultra presets approaching the 50 FPS threshold. At 3840x2160, the performance collapses. The Low preset is the only playable option, achieving 61 FPS. The Medium preset drops to 49 FPS (min 41, max 56), which is borderline. The High preset falls to 30 FPS, and the Ultra preset to 29 FPS, making them effectively unplayable for a smooth experience.

The data reveals a clear trend: the GTX 1650 can handle 1080p with ease, struggles at 1440p with higher settings, and is only viable at 4K with the Low preset. The minimum FPS data points, where available, are also telling. At 1080p Medium, the minimum of 91 FPS shows a 16 FPS drop from the average, indicating some frame pacing issues. At 1440p Medium, the minimum of 66 FPS is 11 FPS below the average, and at 4K Medium, the minimum of 41 FPS is 8 FPS below the average. These dips suggest that while the GPU is the primary bottleneck, there are moments of increased load that cause noticeable frame drops.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is a Turing-architecture GPU with 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing a bandwidth of 128.1 GB/s. Its base clock is 1485 MHz with a boost of 1665 MHz. In synthetic tests, it scores 7880 in Passmark G3D and 305 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12. These scores place it in the 40th percentile of all GPUs, and its nearest rival, the Intel Arc A310, is only 1% faster (7550 vs 7880). The data clearly shows that this GPU is the performance ceiling for this system in Inside.

The GPU’s role is defined by its memory bandwidth and pixel throughput. The 4 GB VRAM is sufficient for a game like Inside, which has a modest texture footprint, but the 128-bit bus is a significant limitation at higher resolutions. The measured FPS scaling confirms this. The transition from 1080p to 1440p at the High preset results in a 28% performance drop (67 to 48 FPS). The transition from 1440p to 4K results in a 37% drop (48 to 30 FPS). This is a classic sign of a GPU that is running out of memory bandwidth, as the increased pixel count requires more data to be fetched and processed.

The GTX 1650’s FP32 performance of 2.984 TFLOPS is also a limiting factor. At 4K Ultra, the GPU is likely fully saturated, rendering at 29 FPS. The fact that the CPU is not the bottleneck is evident from the fact that the 4K Low preset (61 FPS) is more than double the 4K Ultra preset (29 FPS). If the CPU were the limiting factor, the frame rate would be more consistent across settings at a given resolution. Instead, the GPU’s workload is directly tied to the quality settings, and its performance degrades predictably as the workload increases.

FAQ

Q: Why does the system perform so poorly in Inside despite having a high-end CPU?

A: The combo rank of 2780 out of 2887 is driven by the GPU. The GeForce GTX 1650 has a Passmark G3D score of 7880 (40th percentile), while the CPU is in the 93rd percentile. The game is graphically bound, so the GPU’s performance ceiling of 134 FPS at 1080p Low is the limiting factor, not the CPU’s capability.

Q: Is the game playable at 4K resolution with this hardware?

A: Yes, but only at the Low preset, which achieves an average of 61 FPS. The Medium preset drops to 49 FPS, and the High and Ultra presets are unplayable at 30 and 29 FPS respectively. The 4 GB VRAM and 128-bit memory bus are insufficient for higher settings at this resolution.

Q: What is the best resolution for a smooth 60+ FPS experience?

A: The 1920x1080 resolution is the only one where all presets achieve 60+ FPS. The Low preset hits 134 FPS, Medium 107 FPS, and High 67 FPS. At 2560x1440, only the Low preset (97 FPS) and Medium preset (77 FPS) exceed 60 FPS. At 3840x2160, only the Low preset (61 FPS) does.

Q: How does this GPU compare to its closest competitors?

A: The GTX 1650’s average benchmark score is 7472. Its nearest rival is the AMD Radeon HD 8850M, which is 0.3% slower (7447), and the Intel UHD Graphics 750, which is 0.4% slower (7441). The Intel Arc A310 is 1% faster (7550). This shows the GTX 1650 is at the bottom end of the performance spectrum.

Q: Does the CPU’s high core count help in this game?

A: The data suggests it does not. The 20-core processor maintains high frame rates at low resolutions, but the frame rate drops are entirely consistent with GPU limitations. The game is a 2D platformer that likely uses few threads, so the CPU’s multi-core strength is not a factor in the measured results.

Q: What is the difference between the High and Ultra presets?

A: The performance difference is minimal. At 1080p, the High preset averages 67 FPS, while Ultra averages 64 FPS, a 3 FPS difference. At 1440p, the difference is 2 FPS (48 vs 46), and at 4K, it is 1 FPS (30 vs 29). The Ultra preset appears to offer no significant visual benefit for the extra performance cost.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured data, the optimal experience for this hardware is a careful balance between resolution and quality. For players targeting a solid 60 FPS, the 1920x1080 resolution with the High preset is the best choice, delivering 67 FPS. This provides a stable frame rate that is well above the playable threshold. The Medium preset at 1080p offers a higher average of 107 FPS, but the High preset is recommended for better visual quality without sacrificing a smooth experience.

At 2560x1440, the Medium preset is the highest quality option that maintains a playable frame rate, with an average of 77 FPS and a minimum of 66 FPS. This is a viable option for those with 1440p monitors who prioritize a fluid experience. The High and Ultra presets at 1440p (48 and 46 FPS) are playable but may feel less smooth, especially during fast-paced sections.

At 3840x2160, the only recommended setting is Low, which achieves 61 FPS. This is surprising, as it shows the game can run at 4K, but only with reduced visual fidelity. The Medium preset at 4K (49 FPS) is a compromise, but the minimum FPS of 41 suggests potential stuttering. The High and Ultra presets at 4K are not recommended, as they fall below 30 FPS. The data implies that for this system, the best experience is at 1080p High, which offers the best balance of visual quality and performance, while 4K should only be used with the Low preset if resolution is the top priority.